TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying adjacent to the software centre, established by the petitioner company. Therefore, the petitioner company was interested in buying the said plots of land, from M/s.Gum (India) Limited. At the time of the negotiations M/s. Gum (India) Limited had assured the petitioner company that the property in Survey No.408/10, in Sholinganallur Village, measuring an extent of 1.038 acres was free from encumbrances. Two other properties of M/s.Gum (India) Limited, measuring 1.887 acres, in Survey Nos.408/9 and 408/10, had been notified for acquisition by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. The acquisition proceedings had been challenged before this Court. However, the property measuring 1.038 acres, in Survey No.408/10, was not subject to any acquisition proceedings. No cases were pending in respect of the said land. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale, on 24.1.2001, with M/s.Gum (India) Limited, for the purchase of 1.038 acres, in Survey No.408/10, Sholinganullur Village, for a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/-. An advance of Rs. 20,00,000/- had been paid on the same day. Later, a sale deed had been registered, on 30.3.2001, by which the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1959, on the ground that the petitioner is a person holding money for, or on account of the assessee, namely, M/s.Gum (India) Limited. The demand notice had alleged that the assessee was due to pay the sales tax arrears, for the assessment years 1992-1993 to 1998-1999. The demand notice had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had purchased the properties in question, in spite of knowing the fact that it was in arrears of sales tax. 11. By a letter, dated 3.6.2003, the petitioner had informed the first respondent that it was a bona fide purchase, for adequate consideration. It had also been stated that the property in question had been purchased by the petitioner company, without any notice of the charges or encumbrances, in respect of the property in question. The petitioner company had purchased the property with due diligence, after making the necessary enquiries regarding the property in question. Therefore, the impugned demand notice, issued by the first respondent, dated 26.5.2004, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned demand notice, dated 26.5.2004, issued by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent, without considering the fact that the petitioner was not holding any money due to the dealer, the vendor of the property in question and therefore, the petitioner company would not be liable to pay any amount, said to be due from the dealer. It had been further stated that the constitutional right of the petitioner company, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, has been infringed by the passing of the impugned order, by the first respondent. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in A.Senthil Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) 2011(1) CTC 828, wherein, it had been held that the properties of bona fide purchasers, for valuable sale consideration, without notice of the sales tax arrears, cannot be brought to sale, by auction, for the sales tax dues of the borrowing company. 17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also relied on the following decisions, while reiterating his stand that a bona fide transferee, who had purchased the property in question, for valid consideration, without notice of the charge, is protected under the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....du Taxation Special Tribunal, in N.Padma Coffee works Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy (114 STC 494), wherein, it had been held that a disputed question of fact, relating to the bona fide nature of the purchase of the property in question, cannot be decided by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such issues have to be agitated before the appropriate Civil forum, to be proved by evidence. 21. The learned counsel had also relied on a decision of this Court, dated 14.7.2005, made in W.P.No. 5155 of 2003, wherein this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein, in view of the decision reported in N.Padma Coffee works Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy (114 STC 494), leaving open all the issues raised by the petitioner, to be agitated before the appropriate Civil forum. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner company is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 22. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the i....